Along with accusations from late-night talk shows that John Kerry feasts on the living, the Bush attack machine has begun more substantive attacks on the Democratic candidate. Karl Rove has made it no secret that he wants to paint Kerry as not only a "Massachusetts liberal" but a man with an inconsistent voting record who has no principles. Kerry has done little to challenge this frame; instead, his campaign has tried to create a "credibility gap" for Bush while relying on Bush's campaign to self-destruct. However, Kerry needs to face his generalizations head on and fess up that he is indeed a New England liberal with an inconsistent voting record, but that he nevertheless remains the best candidate for the presidency.
Kerry is no doubt a liberal. A 20-year voting record has the so-called dirty word written all over it with only a taste of moderation within the last few years. Meanwhile, Bush has certainly shifted to the right, informally dropping "compassion" from his conservatism. The Republican's nominee is no longer a moderate; he's a bona fide conservative.
By shying away from the liberal title, Kerry allows the Republicans to frame the debate to their choosing. By rebuffing the word "liberal," Kerry and the Democrats delegitimize liberalism.The debate immediately shifts to the right, and conservatism becomes OK, while liberalism vanishes into the political wilderness. Considering there are just as many liberals in this country as conservatives, this is utterly absurd. Progressivism is not extremism, but Bush wants to paint liberalism as just that, and Kerry seems to be willing to let him.
Some may say Kerry cannot embrace the characterization because it will turn off the critical moderate swing voters. However, Bush has made it clear he is not overly embarrassed of his conservatism. If Bush can deflate the harshness of conservatism, Kerry can moderate liberalism ("callous liberalism," perhaps?). Besides, it's insulting to think swing voters will vote based on a simple slogan or ideological title. Both liberalism and conservatism are broad ideologies incasing numerous different issues. Ideology is just a label, but it becomes much more significant if a candidate is embarrassed by it. Kerry can knock the wind out of Bush's sails by accepting his liberalism but rejecting that it is -- by definition -- a bad thing.
Conservatives love to point out how Kerry voted against the first Iraq war, authorized the second and then voted against supplemental funding last fall. Irrespective of the various nuances of each vote -- for example, Bush Sr. only won a 52-47 majority in the Senate to authorize the Persian Gulf War -- Kerry need not back down from accusations of "inconsistency" or the dreaded insult, "flip-flopper."
As the years have passed, Kerry's opinions have changed, and his Senate votes reflect that. Bush ads paint Kerry as "wrong on defense" because it appears to conservatives that he simply cannot make up his mind. A popular Bush slogan in a stump speech demonstrates the Bush position: "My opponent clearly has strong beliefs --- they just don't last very long."
Inherent in the Bush assumption is that everyone should have strong beliefs that don't change at all over time. He calls this "conviction;" I call it "blind ideological passion." Kerry can't deny his voting record -- that's the problem with nominating an experienced senator. But rather than emphasizing "experience," he should challenge the supposition that his voting record is shameful.
The beauty of liberalism is its complexity. Kerry has voted differently on different issues because of an incredibly simple concept: things change. Dealing with the terrorist threat is not simple, and Kerry treated every vote on a case-by-case basis. Would attacking Iraq make America safer, especially considering the misinformation he received from intelligence agencies? Kerry thought so. Now, based on how Bush handled the war and evidence of a massive intelligence failure, Kerry changed his mind. Even politicians must be allowed to "flip-flop" when times change. It's the essence of liberalism -- the ability to look forward and embrace the future rather than cling to the past.
Certainly, good presidential leadership requires making tough decisions and occasionally forcing good, but unpopular, decisions through Congress. However, one can lead successfully while adapting to present situations, while using ideology as a guideline rather than a steadfast rule. In fact, the best leaders make their decisions not only on ideology, but on pragmatism as well.Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt all "flip-flopped." Kerry will be in good company.
Patrick Harvey is a Cavalier Daily Opinion editor. He can be reached at pharvey@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 8 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
